GMK

can't speak for Mr. Presson, but I found this http://news.leavitt.com/health-care-reform/irs-changes-use-lose-rule-allow-500-annual-carryover-health-fsas/ which says that "plans that currently have a grace period for the 2013 plan year (allowing reimbursement in 2014) might not be able to implement the carryover provision until the 2015 plan year." "a plan that currently includes a grace period, but wants to switch to allowing a carryover instead, must be amended to eliminate the grace period by the end of 2013." but this "may be subject to non-Code legal constraints.” I'm guessing that these non-Code constraints are problematic.

Document everything with respect to the son's denial to assume his duties or appoint someone. and with credit to Lou S.'s and mbozek's references, it appears to be time to have a clamoring participant contact DOL/EBSA: Find addresses and telephone numbers for the EBSA Office in your area or call toll free 1-866-444-3272 to speak with a benefits advisor. Perhaps you could call EBSA for guidance on your available options. There isn't a problem with funds not being available to distribute to these other participants, right? that is, he didn't take it all, did he?

google this, and you find that it's ERISA-speak for procedures.

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1051&context=legal http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p6393.pdf

it would be interesting to hear what that explanation was (did they cite any regulations?), but whatever it was, this looks like AXA has assumed fiduciary duties, since they established the (different) conditions under which different participants can get a distribution. Of course, they may have been a plan fiduciary already.

Does 411(a)(5)(A) help: (A) General rule For purposes of this subsection, except as provided in subparagraph ©, the term “year of service” means a calendar year, plan year, or other 12-consecutive month period designated by the plan (and not prohibited under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Labor) during which the participant has completed 1,000 hours of service. [subparagraph © concerns seasonal employees]

As I recall, the employer has 5 days to notify employees whether they are eligible for FMLA leave, subject to extenuating circumstances: http://files.findlaw.com/pdf/employment/employment.findlaw.com_family-medical-leave_fmla-notice-requirements-employer.pdf Here are some comments about appealing a denial: http://www.ehow.com/info_8459265_fmla-not-approved.html

After seeing the name for a time, it's good to see that it's you, Manny. "Grim" is great.

... or 30, maybe? close enough for who it's for. (edit: ah, 1983 to 2008. yes, 25. thanks for the clarification Andy.) In any case, I don't take the world serious. If memory serves, AtA leaves that to the Cards. And didn't they used to play that at the beginning of October, when "cold" meant it got below 50?

Learn: http://www.bulldog.u-net.com/avogadro/avoga.html and groan: http://metevil.tripod.com/moleday/jokes.htm

Caveat emptor, eh? Looks like the application of an abbreviated form of 'due' diligence, sometimes called 'uno' diligence, from the Italian for oops. Good luck, Dude.

FWIW, we run them separately. One reason is that our 401(k) is plain, so we can use a check-the-boxes Plan Doc, and updates are easy to track. In contrast, ESOP's have some unique rules and a lawyer-maintained plan doc, so it has been easier to maintain separate documents for the plans. We don't have to worry about whether or not an amendment to one plan affects (or should or shouldn't affect) the other one. And it's easy enough to amend both plan docs if a rule change requires it. In our plans, there are many differences in the details of eligibility, vesting, contributions, and distributions, so it is easier to watch over them in separate documents. It is also easier for participants to find the information they want by having a separate SPD for each plan. We have the ESOP audited every year (for self-protection if not required). If the plans were combined, we'd have to include the 401(k) in the audit (meaning more audit expenses). Depends, of course, on the number of participants. I don't know if the audit of a combined plan would be less expensive than 2 audits for 2 separate plans. We had the ESOP when we started the 401(k), so we looked at combining them. We decided against it, because ESOP's are so unique. And I'm glad that's what we did.

Thanks, masteff. Good to know this.

Good advice ... for a lot of reasons.

Basically, no. Distributions from the IRA will be subject to the 10% penalty until age 59-1/2 with some exceptions, which I believe are for essentially equal payments (at least annually) over the expected lifetime, for qualified higher education expenses, up to $10,000 for qualified first time home purchase, and for distribution payments made after you receive unemployment comp for 12 consecutive weeks (or would have except you're self employed). Widow can title the IRA in her own name or as an inherited IRA for her benefit. If memory serves, if it's in her name, RMD's don't start until she is 70-1/2. If an inherited IRA, then RMD's begin when he would have been 70-1/2. I'm pretty sure that the under 59-1/2 penalty is based on her age whichever way she titles it.

This, from the benefitslink.com newletter a few days ago: http://www.fragassoadvisors.com/blogs/2013/10/10/the-government-maybe-shutdown-but-your-form-5500-is-still-due/ seems to think the 5500 needed to be in on time. To top it off, "I'm late because of the government shut down" doesn't work with my wife either.

^ As I recall, payments to an alternate payee under a QDRO are not subject to the 10% early withdrawal penalty.

As I understand it, if you are at or below 120, you can file the way you filed the previous year ... which in your case, means your future threshold is again 120. see page 7: http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/pdf/2012-5500inst.pdf

from: http://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Retirement-Plans-FAQs-on-Designated-Roth-Accounts#distns What happens if I take a distribution from my designated Roth account before the end of the 5-taxable-year period? If you take a distribution from your designated Roth account before the end of the 5-taxable-year period, it is a nonqualified distribution. You must include the earnings portion of the nonqualified distribution in gross income. However, the basis (or contributions) portion of the nonqualified distribution is not included in gross income.

I (and hundreds of others) will happily second that nomination.

It doesn't take much to write the letter, either. Draft it now while the information is fresh, and send it in when the time comes. Alternately, if the plan is likely to grow to where 5500's will be required in a few years, then I'd lean towards BG's suggestion to simply keep filing, although (spoiler alert) if the USPS gets its 3 cents in, it will cost 49 cents in January.

^agreed

Initially, it can go out separately as an SMM. FWIW, I'd get it into the SPD promptly (so I don't have to keep track of extra papers to distribute to new participants).

Good point. I, for one, had not noticed. While it adds a touch of droll humor to an unexciting (though informative) notice, we are not including it.

Looks like the employer is trying to be nice by delaying the onset of COBRA by a month. As Ivena said, first of all, check with the insurance carrier. I'd also check how the cafeteria plan (if there is one) factors in, if at all.